The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

The benefits of swept wings were understood by German aeronautical
engineers as far back as 1936, but as aircraft speeds were much lower
than mach 1 at the time, the issue was somewhat academic.

When Boeing had the XB-47 on the drawing board, the plane had a
straight wing. A Boeing rep was part of Operation Paperclip, the great
vacuum cleaner sucking up German technology in 1945-46. He cabled back
to hold everything; he had some stuff that Boeing ought to look at.

In consequence the B-47 had swept wings and carried its turbojets
slung under the wings in pods. Unless NACA is regarded as the same
institution, I suspect this was long in advance of NASA.

From National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 that created NASA:

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Sec. 301. (a) The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, on the
effective
date of this section, shall cease to exist. On such date all functions,
powers, duties, and
obligations, and all real and personal property, personnel (other than
members of the
Committee), funds and records of that organization, shall be transferred to
the
[National Aeronautics and Space] Administration.

So I would say that its work can be claimed by NASA. Also the data uncovered
in Germany by Boeing engineer George Schairer showed that German research
into swept wing designs predated the NACA data (of which Boeing was already
familier). That being said, although the German data showed positive effects
of swept wings at high speeds, the actual 35 degree sweep was develop by
Boeing and Schairer from their own wind tunnel research. The German data
only went out to 29 degrees of sweep. Podded engines were added also from
Boeing wind tunnel research. Apparently the Air Force gave Boeing the
impression that the B-47 without podded engines was too ugly to consider,
something Boeing may have forgotten with their recent frog-mouthed Tac Air
loser.

The real reason that the B-47 had swept wings and podded engines is because
Boeing invested their B-29 profits in their own wind tunnel while their
competitors were still buying wind tunnel time from places like Cal Tech.
This allowed Boeing to try many more designs far more quickly than the
others. That is the important lesson in this story.




all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Kal Alexander wrote:
devil wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:18:59 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...

I think it is obvious. He needs an enemy. Hitler. like many
Europeans of the time hated Jews,


Many Europeans of today as well.

Red herring.


Actually, I believe many Europeans are very fond of red herring.

Pickled or in sour cream?

Stark Raven wrote:
In article , Dave Smith
wrote:

I think it is obvious. He needs an enemy. Hitler. like many Europeans of
the time hated Jews, so they were linked to all sorts of problems and social
issues. They were made the scapegoats. The Arabs are Bush's enemy. The
economy was faltering. There were repeated revelations of large scale
corruption in the stock market, but you were able to beat the hell out of
Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither had the means to defend itself, and easy
victories there made great headlines. People forgot about the other
problems.

Hitler analogy aside, the war is nothing more than a re-election
strategy which is working very well. Cynical yes but Repuglicans will
use any means to gain and maintain political power.

What? Are you suggesting that this war was plagiarized from the script of that
well known movie "Wag the Dog"??? Come to think of it, it does sound like it,
doesn't it?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Stark Raven" wrote in message
...

I don't think LBJ had any re-election campaign.


He actively sought reelection prior to announcing he would not be a
candidate. I believe he won the New Hampshire primary.



Clinton didn't need one.


Clinton campaigned the entire time he was president.

Isn't it refreshing to know that Bush used Clinton as a role model, since he's
demonstrated his ability to run the war while attending fund raisers from coast
to coast. Imagine that.....Bush copying Clinton! Who'd a thunk it!

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:36:39 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"john" wrote in message
news
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

believe that the USSC would deliberately throw a case without legal
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
justification with the whole world watching.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would recommend that you read the book:

Supreme Injustice: How The High Court Hijacked Election 2000

by Alan Dershowitz.

It might be an eye opener for you.


Dershowitz can hardly be cosidered objective.

So?

Does that mean there was no conflict of interest?

Why were no questions being raised by Congress regarding the ethics

of Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas, both of whom had family

members working on the Bush campaign?


Probably because there were no questions to be raised.

Banana republic?

It's all about winning, and we'll change the rules if it's needed? Just
like the generals in Brazil during the military regime. They were
"elected" too, BTW.

All in the family...

Silly me, I always though this was called corruption. But why it gets you
the results you need, you love it, right?

You call this democracy? Sorry folks, but I'll bring back the bananas.

wrote:
In rec.food.cooking John Gaquin wrote:

The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a national
election in the USA, and that is what was intended. When any
country holds a broad-based national vote, there is great danger
that the direction of entire country can be controlled by the
desires of one or two densely populated urban areas, a circumstance
the framers specifically and particularly wished to prevent.

So its better to have one state control the election over all the
other states when that state's own balloting methods were clearly
inconsistent state-wide and in some counties such as West Palm Beach,
were antiquated, poorly designed, and too fragile to be counted
accuratedly? Makes sense to me! NOT!

I would just like to point out that this system that is being derided, and
Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine with everybody when
they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were just fine for Clinton, too.

Why are they a problem only now?

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

Kal Alexander wrote:
wrote:
In rec.food.cooking John Gaquin wrote:

The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a national
election in the USA, and that is what was intended. When any
country holds a broad-based national vote, there is great danger
that the direction of entire country can be controlled by the
desires of one or two densely populated urban areas, a circumstance
the framers specifically and particularly wished to prevent.

So its better to have one state control the election over all the
other states when that state's own balloting methods were clearly
inconsistent state-wide and in some counties such as West Palm Beach,
were antiquated, poorly designed, and too fragile to be counted
accuratedly? Makes sense to me! NOT!

I would just like to point out that this system that is being derided, and
Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine with everybody when
they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were just fine for Clinton, too.

Why are they a problem only now?

Who says they are? They'd only be a problem if the obvious weaknesses in the
process remain unrepaired to the point that they would likely reappear in the
next election. I understand that the State has addressed those problems
although there may be some residual questions about the effectiveness of their
efforts. I imagine that time will tell.

--
Later
Kal

"Kal Alexander" wrote in message
...

I would just like to point out that this system that is being derided, and
Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine with everybody when
they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were just fine for Clinton,
too.

Why are they a problem only now?


Because under them Bush was elected president.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Kal Alexander" wrote in message
...

I would just like to point out that this system that is being derided, and
Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine with everybody when
they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were just fine for Clinton, too.

Why are they a problem only now?


Because under them Bush was elected president.

That happened three+ years ago. Why are they a problem NOW?

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

That happened three+ years ago. Why are they a problem NOW?


They're not. They weren't even a problem then.